Quantized Space & Time

Is there such a thing as the smallest unit of length or the shortest increment of time? That is the question I want to discuss in this thread. It may
seem like a stupid question at first glance, a bit like asking if there is such a thing as the largest possible number. Our natural intuition would
seem to tell us that space and time can be divided into infinitely smaller units. From our point of view time seems to be a smooth and unbroken
phenomena. Likewise, it's natural to think that we can zoom in infinitely on an object to get finer and finer detail.

After all, it's not like we live in a computer game right? Why should space be cut up into little discrete units of length and why should time be
split into discrete intervals? Could it really be possible that small particles are restricted to certain units of space and that they move between
those units in periodic intervals of time? While it may seem quite hard to grasp, I will now present several arguments which will make you strongly
question the possibility of quantized space and time, and hopefully convince you that it is more rational overall.

The first problem that crops up when you try to describe space as an infinitely divisible variable is that you open the door for a fractal universe...
if you are able to zoom in infinitely on any given patch of space you must accept the possibility that eventually you'll zoom in on a whole new
universe. You cannot argue that particles wont form at such small scaled because there is no such thing as "small scales" in infinitely divisible
space. The conclusion is that there is an infinite number of unimaginably small universes surrounding us and filling every part of space.

The next, and equally as concerning problem, is the concept of the big bang when interpreted through the lense of infinitely divisible time. If any
length of time is infinitely divisible, every passing moment is an eternity in some sense. When we calculate the age of the universe, we do so by
calculating how fast the universe is expanding and we work backwards, until all the energy of all the galaxies is condensed into a singularity. The
standard model breaks down however once you get too close to the singularity and the energy densities become too extreme.

The problem is essentially that if time is infinitely divisible, then our calculations will allow us to see closer and closer to the moments just
after the big bang, but it's always possible to get closer, so we need more and more computing power to look closer and closer, but the mathematics
breaks down before you can reach a meaningful conclusion. The only conclusion you can reach is a point of energy so dense where the curvature of space
is so high that it forms a singularity where all energy is condensed into one single point with no volume.

Another problem which arises when one is dealing with infinitely divisible space and time is a problem related to velocity. If space and time is
infinitely divisible, it means that a particle can occupy an infinite amount of different points in space. This is problematic because if a particle
isn't restricted to certain positions in space, it can be made to travel through space at infinitely slower and slower velocities. When we measure the
velocity of anything, we're talking about velocity relative to our own frame of reference, which is typically the Earth.

So when we measure the speed of a spacecraft exiting the Earth's atmosphere we say it's travelling at a certain speed, relative to our position on
Earth. But we also know the Earth moving. The true velocity of the craft is not what we measure it to be from our frame of reference, it's only true
from our frame of reference. But what is the velocity of Earth relative to? It can't be relative to the speed of light, because light behaves
according to the theory of special relativity. If we can't even detect the end of the universe how can we even define what "truly stationary"
even means?

It's all relative unless we have some sort of fundamentally stable reference point, but there is no such point. There is no sign post out in the
universe which reads "this sign is absolutely stationary and can be used as a reference point for determining the true velocity of any object". But if
there is no such reference point then how can the speed of light be the universal speed limit? If everything is relative it makes no sense what so
ever to say that the speed of light is the universal speed limit, we don't even know how fast we are really travelling through the universe or
multiverse.

This is a huge problem for the standard model in my mind. However, if we accept the idea that space and time may be quantized, then we can calculate
what is the smallest possible length (planck length), the shortest period of time
(planck time), and thus the limits on velocity, and how those variables relate to our own frame
of reference. It gives us some fundamentally stable reference point to base our observations upon. Having quantized time also allows us to step back
towards the moment of the big bang in discrete units of time instead of continuous time.

One theory which takes this approach is loop quantum gravity. In this theory space and
time are broken up into discrete units and we can say with absolute precision exactly how much energy can fit into any given unit of space. Believe it
or not, this is achieved with very solid mathematics and theoretical models. When matter is sucked into a black hole the bits of information which
made up that matter are stored on the 2-dimensional surface of the event horizon around the black hole in a sort of holographic format.

One puzzling feature is that the entropy of a black hole scales with its area rather than with its volume, since entropy is normally an extensive
quantity that scales linearly with the volume of the system. This odd property led Gerard 't Hooft and Leonard Susskind to propose the holographic
principle, which suggests that anything that happens in a volume of spacetime can be described by data on the boundary of that volume.[120]

The Planck length is the square root of the Planck area, which is the area by which a spherical black hole increases when the black hole swallows
one bit of information. The proof is relatively simple and was first set out by Jacob Bekenstein.[3]

Now if you're not a physicist, it may seem strange to measure matter in terms of informational "bits", but trust me it's very possible to do,
especially since all particles are quantum mechanical in nature. Loop quantum gravity takes the idea that any given Planck unit of space has a very
specific maximum energy density, so it's impossible to create a singularity or single point of energy which contains all the energy of the universe.
Instead, if you work back towards the big bang you find that at some point space becomes "full" and it causes a
big bounce event.

Most loop quantum gravity theorists do not like to make presumptions about what led up the big bounce event. Loop quantum gravity does not predict
that the universe is cyclic or that it will re-collapse. It says that if the universe were to re-collapse then it would not end in a singularity like
general relativity would predict. Current observations indicate that the universe will in fact expand forever, which only makes the mystery of what
happened before the big bang much deeper and mysterious. But what reason is there to believe that loop quantum gravity is correct?

Well for a start it solves all of the paradoxes I just mentioned. Secondly, quantum mechanics already demonstrates the fact that everything we can
measure is quantized. There are no truly continuous or fractal energy states in nature. For example the energy states that an electron can possess
around the nuclei of an atom is broken into discrete energy states. Light comes in discrete little packets of quanta which we call photons. There is
no such thing as 1.5 quantas, one quantum is the smallest possible unit of energy, it cannot be broken into smaller units.

In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Behind this, one finds the
fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized," referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization".[1] This means that the magnitude can
take on only certain discrete values.

Nature does not like infinite fractions when it comes to the behavior of particles and energy. For most quantum physicists it isn't a big leap for
them to accept that idea that space and time could also be quantized. In fact it becomes hard to see how space and time couldn't be quantized when you
look closely enough at the problem and realize that everything else is quantized. Particle physics is now becoming dominated by
quantum field theory, which describes particles as quantized ripples in an underlying
field.

For example the Higgs boson is commonly described as the result of a ripple in the Higgs field. The universe is telling us something, and that
something is that reality must be built on discrete units and not infinite fractions. That is why there does in fact appear to be such as thing as the
"smallest particle", that is why all particles look exactly the same. If you could divide energy up into infinitely small units, then nearly all
particles would look different, but in fact all fundamental particles in existence have the exact same structure (eg electrons).

I believe that the same rules apply for space and time because if they didn't apply it would result in a whole range of paradoxes. I don't think
everything is quantized because we live in a computer simulation, I think everything is quantized because that's just the natural state of reality,
it's impossible for anything to be defined with infinite precision and so the universe doesn't attempt to define anything with infinite precision. We
live in something which resembles a digital universe not because it's a simulation, but because information likes to be in a digital
state.

I don't know if this helps or is exactly what you are looking for, but if we measure the speed of our thought process in the amount of time (Hz) it
takes to think of something and then have it realized (being creative and then following through), the faster that we can do this, the more aware of
our surrounds we can become - I was charting it out the other day, and was under the impression that the speed of light might be the fastest, at which
point we would be entirely aware of our surroundings.

It is interesting, because this plays into Luciferian Light and Ascension / Beings of Light. Oh, I was answering your question about the smallest
increment of time, and I think that would be when the cycles per second have reached the speed of light... since time is a construct of our minds,
this is entirely legitimate, in my opinion -

I have to think about this for a second, a Hz would be cycles per second... I see what I am trying to say here, the Hz value would approach infinity,
and one cycle would be the smallest unit of time. At least that is a start, there might be something that could set the limit, any ideas?

Oh, I was answering your question about the smallest increment of time, and I think that would be when the cycles per second have reached the
speed of light... since time is a construct of our minds, this is entirely legitimate, in my opinion

I agree that time is a construct of our mind. If the speed of light is indeed the maximum speed limit for any object, then the fastest processor in
this universe cannot have computational cycles which are faster than the speed of light. It's better to think in terms of the particles which move
through time rather than the movement of time. Time does not move, the particles do. The photon moves the fastest out of all the particles and it
never stops moving because it has no mass, so in essence we can imagine that every time a photon moves from one place to another, the universe has
completed one cycle. And if all the positions in space that the photon can take up are restricted to a discrete set of points in space, it's not
really like the photon has moved at all. Each time a unit of time passes, the photon will jump from one position to the next without actually
travelling the space between the points, much like how an electron will undergo a quantum leap between energy levels around the atom. The rate at
which we perceive time is related to the rate at which our brain completes computational cycles, and of course that is much slower than the speed of
light. If our brains did function at the speed of light, I don't believe we would be aware of everything, but we would be aware of everything that we
could possibly be aware of.

Sorry this isn't necessarily related to your post but from what I've read, it seems like your a teacher, a student, or you like the field of
physics, the only reason ask is because I'm trying to get into this field as well but am at a crosswords as to what type of physics, I would like to
learn. I did read your post and after half way through I was lost, but I think I do grasp the concept. From what I understand it seems to work itself
out, but I'm def not educated on the matter.

amsterdamn87
Sorry this isn't necessarily related to your post but from what I've read, it seems like your a teacher, a student, or you like the field of
physics, the only reason ask is because I'm trying to get into this field as well but am at a crosswords as to what type of physics, I would like to
learn. I did read your post and after half way through I was lost, but I think I do grasp the concept. From what I understand it seems to work itself
out, but I'm def not educated on the matter.

Researching theoretical physics is just one of my many hobbies. Personally I think some sort of quantum cosmology field would be the most interesting.
I think quantum field and quantum gravity theories are the most promising avenues of research. I would personally avoid string theory because I think
loop quantum gravity is much more robust alternative and offers more testable hypothesis.

LQG differs from string theory in that it is formulated in 3 and 4 dimensions and without supersymmetry or Kaluza–Klein theory extra dimensions,
while the latter requires both to be true. There is no experimental evidence to date that supports string theory's predictions of supersymmetry and
Kaluza–Klein theory extra dimensions. In a 2003 paper A dialog on quantum gravity,[74] Carlo Rovelli regards the fact LQG is formulated in 4
dimensions and without supersymmetry as a strength of the theory as it represents the most parsimonious explanation, consistent with current
experimental results, over its rival string/M-theory. Peter Woit in Not Even Wrong and Lee Smolin in The Trouble with Physics also regards
string/M-theory to be in conflict with current known experimental results.

So when we measure the speed of a spacecraft exiting the Earth's atmosphere we say it's travelling at a certain speed, relative to our position on
Earth. But we also know the Earth moving. The true velocity of the craft is not what we measure it to be from our frame of reference, it's only true
from our frame of reference. But what is the velocity of Earth relative to? It can't be relative to the speed of light, because light behaves
according to the theory of special relativity. If we can't even detect the end of the universe how can we even define what "truly stationary" even
means?

Well, there is always the microwave background radiation - as I have shown before How fast
are we?, you could measure the relative speed of an object compared to the MBR. Sure, that thing isn't "stationary", but we have sufficiently
measured its parameters.

Sure, that thing isn't "stationary", but we have sufficiently measured its parameters.

The CMB radiation consists of electromagnetic radiation (photons) which travel at the speed of light, so it is indeed not stationary. Like I said in
the opening post, how is it logical to use photons as a reference point when they behave according to the rules of special relativity? Maybe I'm just
missing something about special relativity, but I cannot see how the CMB helps us to solve this problem in a satisfying manner.

ChaoticOrder
The CMB radiation consists of electromagnetic radiation (photons) which travel at the speed of light, so it is indeed not stationary. Like I said in
the opening post, how is it logical to use photons as a reference point when they behave according to the rules of special relativity? Maybe I'm just
missing something about special relativity, but I cannot see how the CMB helps us to solve this problem in a satisfying manner.

The CMB
photons travel at the speed of light, that's true.

I think what you're missing is this red shift versus blue shift picture, of the photon frequency (or wavelength). This provides an apparent
"stationary reference frame" and tells us our motion relative to that frame.

Well that's the reason I tend to post threads like this on ATS and not on those popular science forums which are full of self-proclaimed experts.
Those forums are probably one of the worste places to learn about physics imo because everyone is so closed minded and set in their ways, rather than
appreciating how much we still don't know about the nature of reality.

But I think the main reason they were so hostile towards you was actually because of what you were arguing about irrational numbers. Personally I
would have to agree with them, that pi is a number. It may not be a number that we can ever fully express, but it can be mathematically manipulated
using algebra and other techniques which treat it as if it were a number. So for all intents and purposes it is a number.

The true problem that you are really getting at is that pi is an infinite number with infinite precision, and that is very much related to what we are
discussing here. It's not that pi has no real value, it's that we can never fully express the real value. One can mathematically prove that 0.999...
where the 9 repeats for infinity, is actually equal to 1. They are the same value from a mathematical point of view.

However mathematics is pure abstract logic, it allows us to manipulate weird objects like complex numbers and even do arithmetic with infinities. I do
not think the real world is like that though, it's impossible for anyone to ever write out the full value of pi, and that to me is the very essence
of why everything in the real world must be quantized. Abstract irrational numbers simply do not translate over into the real world.

In fact it goes far more than to talk about the quantisation of space/time to a deeper understanding of the unified field.

It explains that for example the LHC and in fact the goal of the whole field of particle or high energy physics is something they don't yet know it
is. Not a search for the smallest scale particle but will eventually discover that all matter is made of space time and there is nothing in the
universe other than this raw material.

In my further searching I discovered God.... No not the god of religions but the true God... that there is no difference between you and me and that
we are all just aspects of the whole. The whole being consciousness that is the foundation of all creation from the raw chaos at the fundamental level
of reality... The unified Field.

We are moving toward the blue shift and moving away from the red shift, and the amount of the shift can even tell us the velocity.

Hmmm, that is very interesting. I thought that redshift was typically caused by the expansion of space between the galaxies. Why is it that our
movement away or towards a photon would cause us to measure a redshift or blue shift in the wavelength of the photon? I don't quite understand why
the velocity of our solar system or our galaxy would cause the wavelength of the CMB photons to blue shift in the direction that we were travelling.

Same principle. In the case of blue shifted galaxies, we are moving toward them (or they toward us, depending on your reference frame), and in the
case of red shifted galaxies, they are moving away from us (or we are moving away from them, depending on your reference frame), though as you pointed
out the apparent motion in some cases is the result of the metric expansion of space.

So if you understand that, and it sounds like you probably do, then it should be pretty easy to just substitute the cosmic microwave background
radiation photons for photons from galaxies.

And if you don't, an over-simplified analogy would be the Doppler effect of a train whistle pitch dropping as it passes you. It's "blue-shifted" or
higher frequency when moving toward you, and "red shifted" or lower frequency when moving away from you. But don't get the wrong idea from that
analogy that cosmological redshifts are Doppler shifts...it's more complicated than that because there's no metric expansion of space in the train
example, but that analogy should give you some idea, until you study the details of cosmological redshifts.

Not a search for the smallest scale particle but will eventually discover that all matter is made of space time and there is nothing in the
universe other than this raw material.

I agree, but personally I'm starting to move away from the braid theory. I believe that loop quantum gravity is correct in the general claim that all
matter is made of space-time, but I'm not convinced that it forms in the types of braids that we typically see theorized by loop quantum gravity
physicists. I think the way space is quantized is something even more fundamental than braids. In my mind it seems like you could have a virtually
unlimited number of braid configurations, even very simple braids could be configured in many different ways. But we don't seem to observe that type
of extreme particle diversity in the real world. There seems to be a rather small set of fundamental particles which can be used to construct every
other type of particle.

So there's something very strange going on there, and I think it really gets down to the fact of what space-time actually is. Is it just a projection
from a holographic surface, is it some type of 2D surface or membrane which produces the illusion of 3D space, or is space actually 3-dimentional, or
perhaps there are even more dimensions that we can't see? Until we really have a good answer to these questions we will have trouble describing how
space is quantized and how it can be manipulated to form a restricted set of fundamental particles. I have thought about this problem a little bit but
it's really beyond my ability to work with such complex ideas.

Same principle. In the case of blue shifted galaxies, we are moving toward them (or they toward us, depending on your reference frame), and in
the case of red shifted galaxies, they are moving away from us (or we are moving away from them, depending on your reference frame).

I don't think it's quite the same principle. The light from galaxies which are moving away from us is typically red-shifted not because the galaxy
is actually moving through space at a high speed away from us, but because the space between our galaxy and the other galaxy is expanding, so the
space the photon is travelling through is literally expanding. As the space expands it stretches out the wavelength of the photon, and by using
"standard candles" that is how we can tell how far the photon has travelled to reach us. However a galaxy which is travelling towards us must be
moving through space towards us at a high enough velocity so that its speed will overcome the expansion of space. Which is to say, the only galaxies
moving towards us will be galaxies which are very close to our galaxy, and so there will be little to no wavelength shifting on the photon which is
caused by the expansion of space. So what remains must be some other type of wavelength shifting phenomena.

Not a search for the smallest scale particle but will eventually discover that all matter is made of space time and there is nothing in the
universe other than this raw material.

I agree, but personally I'm starting to move away from the braid theory. I believe that loop quantum gravity is correct in the general claim that all
matter is made of space-time, but I'm not convinced that it forms in the types of braids that we typically see theorized by loop quantum gravity
physicists. I think the way space is quantized is something even more fundamental than braids. In my mind it seems like you could have a virtually
unlimited number of braid configurations, even very simple braids could be configured in many different ways. But we don't seem to observe that type
of extreme particle diversity in the real world. There seems to be a rather small set of fundamental particles which can be used to construct every
other type of particle.

So there's something very strange going on there, and I think it really gets down to the fact of what space-time actually is. Is it just a projection
from a holographic surface, is it some type of 2D surface or membrane which produces the illusion of 3D space, or is space actually 3-dimentional, or
perhaps there are even more dimensions that we can't see? Until we really have a good answer to these questions we will have trouble describing how
space is quantized and how it can be manipulated to form a restricted set of fundamental particles. I have thought about this problem a little bit but
it's really beyond my ability to work with such complex ideas.

Hi chaotic

Quantized space is very likely, I have been playing with the idea for a while and it seems to have some merit. It is the only theory that can provide
a bottom for the never ending onion peel of particles. As Korg points out there is likely a way that space gets converted into fundamental particles
that build the rest. The floor is the space to fundamental particle transformation. I expect there to be a simple relationship (akin to energy to
mass) that defines the amount of matter we apparently see in the universe.

This is not without its experimental hints already. The energy density at the planck length is absolutely enormous and after all energy is effectively
mass. Casimir seems to have shown that whilst the energy fluctuates and balances to near zero, particles and energy can be scooped from the vacuum. It
strongly supports the space to energy/matter relationship.

Whilst I understand why you do not like the 'braid' model as you put it and think there are unlimited configurations, there are likely only very
limited numbers of ways that these quanta of space can be packed together to be stable. The usual candidates most know from crystals are imo the most
stable energetically. If a quanta of space is wrapped up (for want of a better term) properties might emerge from its kink in the space matrix of
quanta. If for geometric reasons the space quanta need to fill the voids between them (I think we need a new set of terms) this may distort the space
around it causing very basic properties like mass.

These new particles might only remain stable if collected together in the larger subatomic particles. Just like crystals like certain mixes, there may
well be similar patterns that work in this quantized space. Its a case of plugging them together to fill those lovely symmetric tables of particles
the physicists come up with.

I think its the only way to connect the gravitational field and matter. In past experience like entities affect like entities. Its what linked the
fields of electricity and magnetism. Likewise matter is known to affect space, is i such a great leap to think the two are connected deeply?

Apologies for all the 'liekly's''maybe's' and 'probablies' but its a really odd field. In the end I don't know it will be the source of that esoteric
knowledge of 3D space projections and the rest, but it will likely so up the field of matters building blocks. Judging by what the electromagnetic
combo delivered, it could be a very lucrative field of science.

Whilst I understand why you do not like the 'braid' model as you put it and think there are unlimited configurations, there are likely only
very limited numbers of ways that these quanta of space can be packed together to be stable.

I don't dislike it, I think it's a brilliant theory and I definitely think that something close to it is the truth. But the more I think about it, the
more it seems like it's not a 100% correct theory. I think it's very close to the truth but not quite all the way there. For example, why is it that
the standing waves produced by electrons around the nuclei produce shapes
which correspond to spherical harmonics? Can you fully explain such
abstract behavior of fundamental particles using only the braid theory?

My personal theory is that space can be stretched into a so called "negative dimension" (creating negative energy), which cannot be detected from
within our own dimension. The basic idea is that energy can only be created if an equal amount of negative energy is also created. So we really only
get to see one side of the big bang, in negative space there should have been a negative big bang. I really don't want to get too much into this
concept in this thread but you can read more about that theory here.

I also want to share the following video because it's super cool and related to the subjects I have brought up in this post (spherical harmonics in
particular) and near the end it shows something which I think is starting to get extremely close to the way subatomic particles are structured and the
way they oscillate, and it's something which cannot be fully explained by braids imo. However, while I believe that both these concepts are getting
very close to the truth, they are not entirely compatible. We need something which can merge the best of all these theories.

EDIT: to quote top comment from the video:

Tetrahedral non-euclidean geometry was my specialty... it is how spherical harmonics work, for buckyballs as well as hydrogen atoms... you are
really on to something here...﻿ when you say "is this how atomic oscillations work", they're called "spherical harmonics" and yes, they work almost
exactly how you have shown them... bravo, you deserve the nobel for this

That’s a good question. Yes space and time are quantized. If one really seek to understand, even as a lay person, then she or he will learn now what
science in the future will ultimately learn, that space and time are discrete and actually form the smallest Planck size particle. Though it’s not
correct, for now they can be thought of as spacetime particles, as it may help to imagine them. Everything in our universe (Bosons, Leptons and the
Hadrons) are made from these particles.

The speed of light ( C ) is a limit? That is partially right, but that is because the speed of light is the limit only in any given three dimensional
reference frame, we live in one, but there can be other reference frames, in fact if we live in a universe possessing 12 dimensions (3x4), it means
besides our own, we can have access to other reference frames.

Though in any reference frame the max speed is that of light once reached we automatically inter the next, thus we can achieve a total of 4C. The
speed of light should not be seen as a limit per se, but as a pivot or relative boundary. (by the way, you don’t get to this boundary by (moving)
going fast.)

There are no infinities, there is no such thing as “forever”, nature is smarter then us. As we observe the universe the numbers may seem
incredible and unlimited, but there aren’t an infinite number of particles or elements, there aren’t an infinite number of planets, stars or
galaxies, like-wise, there isn’t an infinite number of time and space. What we refer to as gravity has many other faces, it’s a meta-phenomenon,
and the out-come, the purpose is always the same. We can imagine infinities, but nature always sets upper and lower boundaries.

That everything is quantized, of course! If everything in the universe) is made from discrete particles of space and time, the basic building block,
so it can only follow that energy (Planck's constent) and matter (alfa prime) are also quantized. Plancks constant relates to the discrete nature of
the spacetime geometry of Volume (energy) and “alpha prime” (it will be discovered) relates to the discrete spacetime geometry of Area (mass).

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.